In Re: M.B. and M.M. Appeal of: A.B.

J -S19011-17
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
IN RE: M.B. AND M.M. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
APPEAL OF: A.B. No. 1762 MDA 2016
Appeal from the Decree Entered October 7, 2016
In the Court of Common Pleas of Huntingdon County
Orphans' Court at No(s): 31-16-0025,
31-16-0026
BEFORE: GANTMAN, Pa, BENDER, P.J.E., and STEVENS, P.J.E.*
MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.: FILED MARCH 20, 2017
Appellant, A.B. ("Mother"), appeals from the decree entered in the
Huntingdon County Court of Common Pleas Orphans' Court, which granted
the petitions of the Huntingdon County Children's Services ("Agency") for
involuntary termination of Mother's parental rights to her minor children,
M.B. and M.M. ("Children"). We affirm.
In its opinion, the Orphans' Court fully and correctly set forth the
relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no
reason to restate them.'
' Despite the court's entry of a single termination decree, which terminated
Mother's rights to both M.B. and M.M., we observe that it was improper for
Mother to file a single notice of appeal and statement of errors complained of
on appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 341 (providing that where one or more orders
resolves issues arising on more than one docket, or relating to more than
(Footnote Continued Next Page)
*Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
J -S19011-17
Mother raises five issues for our review:
WHETHER...[THE] COURT ERRED IN TERMINATING THE
PARENTAL RIGHTS OF [MOTHER] IN REGARDS TO
[CHILDREN?]
WHETHER...[THE] COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE
AGENCY PRESENTED CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE
THAT MOTHER...EVIDENCED A SETTLED PURPOSE OR
INTENT TO GIVE UP OR FAILED TO PROVIDE PARENTAL
DUTIES FOR THE SIX MONTHS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING
THE FILING OF THE PETITION[?]
WHETHER...[THE] COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT
[MOTHER] COULD NOT WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME
CORRECT ANY DEFICIENCIES THAT CAUSED THE
PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN[?]
WHETHER...[THE] COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE
CONDITIONS WHICH LED TO THE REMOVAL OR
PLACEMENT OF [CHILDREN] CONTINUED TO EXIST AND
TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS WOULD BEST SERVE
THE NEEDS AND WELFARE OF [CHILDREN][?]
WHETHER...[THE] COURT ERRED BY ASKING QUESTIONS
CONCERNING AN EVICTION OF [MOTHER] IN AN
UNRELATED MATTER THAT [THE COURT] PRESIDED OVER
AND WHICH AN AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED CONCERNING
AN EVICTION ACTION AGAINST [MOTHER?]
(Mother's Brief at 4-5).
Appellate review of termination of parental rights cases implicates the
following principles:
In cases involving termination of parental rights: "our
standard of review is limited to determining whether the
order of the trial court is supported by competent
(Footnote Continued)
one judgment, separate notices of appeal are required). Nevertheless, we
decline to reject Mother's appeal on this basis.
-2
J -S19011-17
evidence, and whether the trial court gave adequate
consideration to the effect of such a decree on the welfare
of the child."
In re Z.P., 994 A.2d 1108, 1115 (Pa.Super. 2010) (quoting In re I.1., 972
A.2d 5, 8 (Pa.Super. 2009)).
Absent an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or
insufficient evidentiary support for the trial court's
decision, the decree must stand. ... We must
employ a broad, comprehensive review of the record
in order to determine whether the trial court's
decision is supported by competent evidence.
In re B.L.W., 843 A.2d 380, 383 (Pa.Super. 2004) (en
banc), appeal denied, 581 Pa. 668, 863 A.2d 1141 (2004)
(internal citations omitted).
Furthermore, we note that the trial court, as the
finder of fact, is the sole determiner of the credibility
of witnesses and all conflicts in testimony are to be
resolved by the finder of fact. The burden of proof is
on the party seeking termination to establish by
clear and convincing evidence the existence of
grounds for doing so.
In re Adoption of A.C.H., 803 A.2d 224, 228 (Pa.Super.
2002) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
The standard of clear and convincing evidence means
testimony that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing
as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction,
without hesitation, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.
In re .7.D.W.M., 810 A.2d 688, 690 (Pa.Super. 2002). We
may uphold a termination decision if any proper basis
exists for the result reached. In re C.S., 761 A.2d 1197,
1201 (Pa.Super. 2000) (en banc). If the court's findings
are supported by competent evidence, we must affirm the
court's decision, even if the record could support an
opposite result. In re R.L.T.M., 860 A.2d 190, 191-92
(Pa.Super. 2004).
In re Z.P., supra at 1115-16 (quoting In re Adoption of K.1., 936 A.2d
-3
J -S19011-17
1128, 1131-32 (Pa.Super. 2007), appeal denied, 597 Pa. 718, 951 A.2d
1165 (2008)).
Agency filed petitions for the involuntary termination of Mother's
parental rights to Children on the following grounds:
§ 2511. Grounds for involuntary termination
(a) General Rule.-The rights of a parent in regard to a
child may be terminated after a petition filed on any of the
following grounds:
(1) The parent by conduct continuing for a period of
at least six months immediately preceding the filing
of the petition either has evidenced a settled purpose
of relinquishing parental claim to a child or has
refused or failed to perform parental duties.
(5) The child has been removed from the care of the
parent by the court or under a voluntary agreement
with an agency for a period of at least six months,
the conditions which led to the removal or placement
of the child continue to exist, the parent cannot or
will not remedy those conditions within a reasonable
period of time, the services or assistance reasonably
available to the parent are not likely to remedy the
conditions which led to the removal or placement of
the child within a reasonable period of time and
termination of the parental rights would best serve
the needs and welfare of the child.
(8) The child has been removed from the care of the
parent by the court or under a voluntary agreement
with an agency, 12 months or more have elapsed
from the date of removal or placement, the
conditions which led to the removal or placement of
the child continue to exist and termination of
parental rights would best serve the needs and
welfare of the child.
(b) Other considerations.-The court in terminating
the rights of a parent shall give primary consideration to
- 4 -
J -S19011-17
the developmental, physical and emotional needs and
welfare of the child. The rights of a parent shall not be
terminated solely on the basis of environmental factors
such as inadequate housing, furnishings, income, clothing
and medical care if found to be beyond the control of the
parent. With respect to any petition filed pursuant to
subsection (a)(1), (6) or (8), the court shall not consider
any efforts by the parent to remedy the conditions
described therein which are first initiated subsequent to
the giving of notice of the filing of the petition.
23 Pa.C.S.A. § 2511(a)(2), (a)(5), (a)(8), and (b).
"Parental rights may be involuntarily terminated where any one
subsection of Section 2511(a) is satisfied, along with consideration of the
subsection 2511(b) provisions." In re Z.P., supra at 1117.
Initially, the focus is on the conduct of the parent. The
party seeking termination must prove by clear and
convincing evidence that the parent's conduct satisfies the
statutory grounds for termination delineated in Section
2511(a). Only if the court determines that the parent's
conduct warrants termination of...her parental rights does
the court engage in the second part of the analysis
pursuant to Section 2511(b): determination of the needs
and welfare of the child under the standard of best
interests of the child.
In re L.M., 923 A.2d 505, 511 (Pa.Super. 2007) (internal citations omitted).
Termination under Section 2511(a)(1) involves the following:
To satisfy the requirements of [S]ection 2511(a)(1), the
moving party must produce clear and convincing evidence
of conduct, sustained for at least the six months prior to
the filing of the termination petition, which reveals a
settled intent to relinquish parental claim to a child or a
refusal or failure to perform parental duties. In addition,
Section 2511 does not require that the parent
demonstrate both a settled purpose of relinquishing
parental claim to a child and refusal or failure to
- 5 -
J -S19011-17
perform parental duties. Accordingly, parental rights
may be terminated pursuant to Section 2511(a)(1) if
the parent either demonstrates a settled purpose of
relinquishing parental claim to a child or fails to
perform parental duties.
Once the evidence establishes a failure to perform parental
duties or a settled purpose of relinquishing parental rights,
the court must engage in three lines of inquiry: (1) the
parent's explanation for...her conduct; (2) the post -
abandonment contact between parent and child; and (3)
consideration of the effect of termination of parental rights
on the child pursuant to Section 2511(b).
In re Z.S.W., 946 A.2d 726, 730 (Pa.Super. 2008) (internal citations
omitted). Regarding the six-month period prior to filing the termination
petition:
[T]he trial court must consider the whole history of a given
case and not mechanically apply the six-month statutory
provision. The court must examine the individual
circumstances of each case and consider all explanations
offered by the parent facing termination of...her parental
rights, to determine if the evidence, in light of the totality
of the circumstances, clearly warrants the involuntary
termination.
In re B.,N.M., 856 A.2d 847, 855 (Pa.Super. 2004), appeal denied, 582 Pa.
718, 872 A.2d 1200 (2005) (internal citations omitted).
"Termination of parental rights under Section 2511(a)(5) requires
that: (1) the child has been removed from parental care for at least six
months; (2) the conditions which led to removal and placement of the child
continue to exist; and (3) termination of parental rights would best serve the
needs and welfare of the child." In re Z.P., supra at 1118.
"[T]o terminate parental rights under Section 2511(a)(8), the
- 6 -
J -S19011-17
following factors must be demonstrated: (1) [t]he child has been removed
from parental care for 12 months or more from the date of removal; (2) the
conditions which led to the removal or placement of the child continue to
exist; and (3) termination of parental rights would best serve the needs and
welfare of the child." In re Adoption of M.E.P., 825 A.2d 1266, 1275-76
(Pa.Super. 2003). "Section 2511(a)(8) sets a 12 -month time frame for a
parent to remedy the conditions that led to the children's removal by the
court." In re A.R., 837 A.2d 560, 564 (Pa.Super. 2003). Once the 12 -
month period has been established, the court must next determine whether
the conditions that led to the child's removal continue to exist, despite the
reasonable good faith efforts of the Agency supplied over a realistic time
period. Id. Termination under Section 2511(a)(8) does not require the
court to evaluate a parent's current willingness or ability to remedy the
conditions that initially caused placement or the availability or efficacy of
Agency services. In re Adoption of T.B.B., 835 A.2d 387, 396 (Pa.Super.
2003); In re Adoption of M.E.P., supra.
Under Section 2511(b), the court must consider whether termination
will meet the child's needs and welfare. In re C.P., 901 A.2d 516, 520
(Pa.Super. 2006). "Intangibles such as love, comfort, security, and stability
are involved when inquiring about the needs and welfare of the child. The
court must also discern the nature and status of the parent -child bond,
paying close attention to the effect on the child of permanently severing the
-7
J -S19011-17
bond." Id. Significantly:
In this context, the court must take into account whether a
bond exists between child and parent, and whether
termination would destroy an existing, necessary and
beneficial relationship.
When conducting a bonding analysis, the court is not
required to use expert testimony. Social workers and
caseworkers can offer evaluations as well. Additionally,
Section 2511(b) does not require a formal bonding
evaluation.
In re Z.P., supra at 1121 (internal citations omitted).
"The statute permitting the termination of parental rights outlines
certain irreducible minimum requirements of care that parents must provide
for their children, and a parent who cannot or will not meet the requirements
within a reasonable time following intervention by the state, may properly be
considered unfit and have...her rights terminated." In re B.L.L., 787 A.2d
1007, 1013 (Pa.Super. 2001). This Court has said:
There is no simple or easy definition of parental duties.
Parental duty is best understood in relation to the needs of
a child. A child needs love, protection, guidance, and
support. These needs, physical and emotional, cannot be
met by a merely passive interest in the development of the
child. Thus, this [C]ourt has held that the parental
obligation is a positive duty which requires affirmative
performance.
This affirmative duty encompasses more than a financial
obligation; it requires continuing interest in the child and a
genuine effort to maintain communication and association
with the child.
Because achild needs more than a benefactor, parental
duty requires that a parent exert [herself] to take and
maintain a place of importance in the child's life.
- 8 -
J -S19011-17
Parental duty requires that the parent act affirmatively
with good faith interest and effort, and not yield to every
problem, in order to maintain the parent -child relationship
to the best of...her ability, even in difficult circumstances.
A parent must utilize all available resources to preserve
the parental relationship, and must exercise reasonable
firmness in resisting obstacles placed in the path of
maintaining the parent -child relationship. Parental rights
are not preserved by waiting for a more suitable or
convenient time to perform one's parental responsibilities
while others provide the child with his or her physical and
emotional needs.
In re B.,N.M., supra at 855 (internal citations omitted). "[A] parent's basic
constitutional right to the custody and rearing of...her child is converted,
upon the failure to fulfill...her parental duties, to the child's right to have
proper parenting and fulfillment of [the child's] potential in a permanent,
healthy, safe environment." Id. at 856.
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the
applicable law, and the well -reasoned opinion of the Honorable George N.
Zanic, we conclude Mother's issues merit no relief. The Orphans' Court
opinion comprehensively discusses and properly disposes of the questions
presented. (See Orphans' Court Opinion, filed November 17, 2016, at 5-12)
(finding: throughout dependency hearings, Agency was concerned with
Children's medical neglect, lack of supervision, and home conditions; Mother
waited several days to obtain necessary medication [for M.B.'s pneumonia];
Mother did not properly treat Children's lice for extended time; Mother
ignored many safety concerns; Mother's home conditions also created health
-9
J -S19011-17
and safety risk to Children; caseworkers observed, inter a/ia, sink used as
garbage can, spilled ash trays, dirty diapers lying around home, bathtub
filled with water, knives and razors left out, food left on floor, and child
safety gates left open; Mother failed to maintain home improvements; as of
June, 2016, caseworker noted health and safety concerns continued in
Mother's home; caseworkers went above and beyond to assist Mother for
almost 18 months, but Mother still lacks ability to establish safe and healthy
environment for Children; Mother did not believe Children were in danger in
her home; termination of Mother's parental rights was proper under Sections
2511(a)(1), (5), and (8); under Section 2511(b), Children were not upset to
return to foster home after their visits with Mother ended; Children have
extremely close bond with foster parents; severing bond with Mother is in
Children's best interests; Children deserve permanency and healthy
environment, which Mother is incapable of providing; regarding Mother's
claim that court improperly questioned Mother about eviction proceedings,
Mother's eviction was previously addressed during dependency proceedings,
which are incorporated into record; permanency review orders stated Mother
voluntarily agreed to move out of public housing after receiving eviction
notice due to home conditions; court addressed eviction proceeding, but only
considered it minimally relevant). Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the
Orphans' Court opinion.
Decree affirmed.
- 10 -
J -S19011-17
Judgment Entered.
J seph D. Seletyn,
Prothonotary
Date: 3/20/2017
Circulated 03/07/2017 02:36 PM
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF HUNTINGDON COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION
IN RE: M.B. No. 2016-0025
DOB: 12/ /2013 :
IN RE: M.M. No. 2016-0026
DOB: 4 . '2012
MEMORANDUM
After hearing held on October 5 and 6, 2016, pursuant to a Petition
to Terminate Parental Rights, this Court was tasked with determining
whether Petitioner had established by clear and convincing evidence that
-~ppellanfsTnereinafter "Natural Mother") parenlaTrigflls witn respect to····- ··
M.M. and M.B. should be terminated. On October 7, 2016, we entered a
decree terminating the parental rights of Natural Mother. We now write to
fulfill our duties pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 192S(a).
Natural Mother's Concise Statement of Matters Complained raised
five issues that are related to the termination proceedings, which are: (1)
this Court erred in terminating the parental rights of Natural Mother, (2)
this Court erred in finding the Agency presented clear and convincing
evidence of a settled intent to give up six months prior to filing the petition,
(3) this Court erred in finding that Natural Mother could not correct any
deficiencies in a reasonable time, (4) this Court erred in finding the
conditions that lead to removal continue to exist and termination of
parental rights would best serve the needs and welfare of the children, and
(5) this Court erred by asking questions about an eviction of Natural Mother
in unrelated matter that he presided over in which an agreement was
entered concerning an eviction action.
Background
1. A. B. ("Natural Mother") is the natural mother of
minor children M.B. and M.M.
1 FILED Noverrhec I 1 , 20 &
Virginia Cooper Register of Wills
)~~.s and Clerk of the Orphans' Court
\ .. Huntingdon County, Pennsylvania
2. I<· 2004 PA Super 30, Pll, 843
A.2d 380, 384 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004). We find that the Agency has presented
sufficient evidence as to all three sections in regard to Natural Mother.
To satisfy the requirements of Section 2511(a)(1), the petitioning
party does not need to show a settled purpose of relinquishing the parental
claim and a failure to perform parental duties. In re C.M.S., 2003 PA Super
292, Pll, 832 A.2d 457, 462 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003} (quotation omitted). The
Pennsylvania Supreme Court has discussed parental duties, stating:
[t] here is no simple or easy definition of parental duties.
Parental duty is best understood in relation to the needs of a
child. A child needs love, protection, guidance, and support.
These needs, physical and emotional, cannot be met by a
merely passive interest in the development of the child. Thus,
our courts have held that the parental obligation is a positive
duty which requires affirmative performance. This affirmative
duty encompasses more than a financial obligation; it requires
continuing interest in the child and a genuine effort to maintain
communication and association with the child. Because a child
needs more than a benefactor, parental duty requires that a
parent 'exert himself to take and maintain a place of importance
in the child's life.'
In re C.M.S., 832 A.2d 457, 462, 2003 PA Super 292, P13 (Pa. Super. Ct.
2003) {citation omitted).
7
Furthermore, the Superior Court has noted that "'[a]lthough it is the
six months immediately preceding the filing of the petition that is most
critical to the analysis, the trial court must consider the whole history of a
---- · given case-ananot mechanlcallv applvthe six-morffn"-statutory provis1on.m-··---------
ln re of K.Z.S., 2008 PA Super 62, P7, 946 A.2d 753, 758 (Pa. Super. Ct.
2008)
To satisfy the requirements of Section 2511(a)(S), the moving party
must produce clear and convincing evidence regarding the following
... elements: (1) the child was removedfrom.parental.care for at least six
months; (2) the conditions that led to the child's removal or placement
continue to exist; (3) the parents cannot or will not remedy the conditions
that were the reasons for the removal or placement within a reasonable
period time; (4) the services reasonably available to the parents are unlikely
to remedy the conditions which led to removal or placement within a
reasonable period of time; and (5) termination of parental rights would
best serve the needs and welfare of the child. In re Adoption of M.E.P.,
2003 PA Super 210, 825 A.2d 1266, 1273-74 (Pa. Super. 2003) (citation
omitted).
When addressing Section 2511(a}(8), we apply the following
standard, which is:
(1) the child has been removed from parental care for 12
months or more from the date of removal; (2) the conditions
which led to the removal or placement of the child continue to
exist; and (3) termination of parental rights would best serve the
needs and welfare of the child. Section (a)(8) sets a 12 month
time frame for a parent to remedy the conditions that led to the
children's removal by the court. Once the 12 month period has
been established, the court must next determine whether the
conditions that led to the child's removal continue to exist,
despite the reasonable good faith efforts of [the agency]
supplied over a realistic time period. Termination under Section
2511(a)(8) does not require the court to evaluate a parent's
current willingness or ability to remedy the conditions that
initially caused placement or the availability or efficacy of
[agency] services.
8
In re K.Z.S., 2008 PA Super 62, 946 A.2d 753, 759 (Pa. Super. 2008) (citation
omitted).
- - --" ---------~- -----~netrial court.must.cons1ae·r the [(developmental, pnysical anc:I _
emotional needs and welfare" of the children only after the statutory
requirements of Section 2511(a) are met. 23 Pa.C.S. § 2511(b). In re C.M .S.,
884 A.2d 1284, 1286-87, 2005 PA Super 340, P7 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005). With
this type of analysis, the court will consider the "[i] ntangibles such as love,
comfort, security, and stability." lfl The court will look at the nature and
____ __,_ -s-t-a-t-tJs of t he-pa-r-e-rtt-ehild-boncl,a-n-d-foeus-on--the--ef-f-eei--e-f-#te-et-md-eei-rtg----
pe r mane nt ly severed from that bond.~
Throughout the dependency hearings, the Agency had concerns
about the home conditions, medical neglect, and supervision. The medical
neglect issues included not picking up medication and the children having
lice for an extended period of time. Although Natural Mother took steps to
stop the lice, they were ultimately ineffective and allowed for the lice to
remain an issue for weeks. The caseworkers had supervision concerns with
the children going upstairs and downstairs while Natural Mother was
sleeping.
Natural Mother's home conditions were not just messy, they created
a health and safety risk to the minor children. In January 2015, the initial
review of home conditions included trash piled up, dishes in the sink, and
food on the floor. Sarah Shope, the RDS caseworker, spent a year on the
case. She described the home conditions as "unsanitary." The sink was used
as garbage, the ash trays spilled, and there were dirty diapers laying around
the a pa rtme nt.
From January 2015 to March 2015, Sarah Shope was going to the
home four to five times each week to give Natural Mother suggestions and
assistance. She did not believe there was improvement because the home
conditions continued to be a risk to the children. In March 2015, months
after first assisting Natural Mother, Shope saw a lot of safety concerns in
the home-a bathtub filled with water, knives left out, and the children's
safety gate not being used. When asked about the time she worked on the
case, Shope described Natural Mother as having brief periods of progress
followed by regress.
9
Jackie Garman, the caseworker assigned in January 2016, said there
was progress but it was not substantial and the house was never
completely clean. Shope and Garman took pictures of the home conditions
- and went tfirougfi eve-ry proffle-m--wTfh--fneNafoTalMother. The most recent
photographs and visit in June had the same sanitary issues. Natural Mother
would respond with excuses and she lacked follow through. The reason the
overnight visits with the children were stopped was due to the home
conditions. Natural Mother's habitual tendencies caused the deplorable
home conditions and that environment continued to pose dangers to the
------11--eh-Hd-r-e-n. - - - -- -------- -- -
As such, the Agency has presented by clear and convincing evidence
that satisfy the requirements of section 2511(a)(l}, (a)(S), and (a)(8). When
children are placed in foster care, the parent has an affirmative duty to
work towards the return of the children. In re William L., 477 Pa. 322, 333,
383 A.2d 1228, 1233 (Pa. 1978). Throughout the dependency litigation and
termination hearing, Natural Mother failed at affirmatively taking steps
when seeking the return of her children.
The evidence shows that pursuant to Section 2511(a)(l), the natural
mother's conduct that initially led to placement has continued for a period
of at least six months due to a failure to perform parental duties. We have
considered the entire history of the case, and Natural Mother does not
have the ability to establish a safe and healthy environment for her
children.
Natural Mother's home conditions have been a constant concern to
the Agency. She has not shown the ability to maintain a safe environment
for her children. Since January 2015, RDS and the Agency have provide
services to Natural Mother. At one point, the caseworker was going to
Natural Mother's house four to five times a week to assist and teach her
about proper home upkeep. Social workers went above and beyond their
duties to help Natural Mother, and they never saw more than a slight and
periodic improvement. There was never a time when Natural Mother
maintained improvements for an extended period of time or the
improvements would be considered substantial.
10
Even though Natural Mother moved back in with her own mother in
July 20164, Natural Mother has never shown that she developed the
necessary skills for keeping a safe home. Even more disturbing, upon
reflection, Natura I Motner still does not bel1eve her children were in danger
at her residence. The initial home conditions were such a concern that it led
to the removal and placement of the children.
As addressed above, pursuant to Section 2511(a)(S), the conditions
that led to the removal of the children continue to exist, and the Natural
------------------- -M.other:.-w.ilLneve.r be able to remedy the conditions which le.d to the
removal, even within a reasonable time period. The Agency has provided
Natural Mother with months of social services.
In fact, the Agency spent extensive time, well beyond the usual six
months, with Natural Mother on the reunification goal. Even if Natural
Mother was given a reasonable time period, it would be futile in resolving
the underlying concerns. Natural Mother's inability to provide a safe and
healthy environment for the children is an issue that has never been
resolved. The children were removed over eighteen months ago, and the
services have been available to Natural Mother since the beginning of the
dependency case. The most troubling aspect of this case is that the home
conditions have been the crux of removing the children and reducing
overnight visits, but still Natural Mother has failed to take the appropriate
steps to maintain a healthy environment for the children. Natural Mother
would argue that her new residence with her mother shows improvement,
but actually it demonstrates that she cannot handle the situation without
assistance from others.
As to Section 2511(a)(8), the children have been removed over
twelve months, and the conditions that led to the removal are still present.
The termination of the parental rights would best serve the needs and
4
Natural Mother raises the issue that this Court erred by addressing an eviction proceeding against
Natural Mother in a separate proceeding. Natural Mother's eviction was previously addressed during the
dependency proceedings that are incorporated into this record. The permanency review Orders state that
"[n]atural mother voluntarily agreed to move out of (public housing) by July 24, 2016" and "natural
mother received an eviction notice from housing due to home conditions in May 2016, she chose to leave
the residence voluntarily and is now living with her mother." See June 3, 2016 Permanency Review Order
and November 4, 2016 Permanency Review Order. This Court addressed the eviction proceeding, but only
considers it relevant to the extent that Natural Mother was voluntarily removed from public housing due
to eviction proceedings.
11
welfare of the children. Natural Mother cannot meet the necessary home
conditions, and the children require permanency with a safe and stable .
environment. Natural Mother has been given every opportunity to remedy
-------~1--,-t'nehome cond1t1ons,6ut sne lfas never aemonstrated the necessary
parenting skills. Even as recently as of June 2016, there were still health
concerns in Natural Mother's home.
Because Section 2511(a) has been established by clear and
convincing evidence, the Court must now consider the "developmental,
physical and emotional needs and welfare" of the children. 23 Pa.C.S.
§2Sll(b). Natural Mother testified that she loves her children, and
maternal grandmother described that relationship as a "strong bond." This
Court believes that Natural Mother loves these children. However, after the
visits with Natural Mother, the children were not upset to return back to
their foster home. Although it is always a difficult decision to sever a
natural pa rent-children bond, the testimony at the termination hearing
shows that it is the necessary course of action. It is in the children's best
interest to sever the bond. These children require permanency and a
healthy environment, and unfortunately, Natural Mother is incapable of
providing such an environment.
BY THE COURT,
George N. Zanic, P.J.
12
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
HUNTINGDON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
ORPHANS' COURT DIVISION
-···----------------------- ------------
In Re: File No.:
ft.• 8. 31-16-0025
M.M. 31-16-0026
NOTICE BY CLERK OF THE ORPHANS' COURT
TO: VIA:
Ray A Ghaner, Esq Courthouse Mailbox
Nicholas Newfield, Esq Courthouse Mailbox
Christopher Wencker, Esq Courthouse Mailbox
Phillip O. Robertson, Esq USPS
109 Byron Ave., Altoona, PA 16602
Pursuant to Pa. O.C. Rule 4.6, notice is hereby given that the attached
Memorandum has been entered and filed of record 17th day of November, 2016.
,i.'
BY: